9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the said Act as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of seventy five per cent of the rate of duty leviable on such tyres under the said First Schedule, read with any notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the said rules and in force for the time being : Provided that such tyres are manufactured in a factory which is a new industrial undertaking licensed under Section 11 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), and from which the clearances of tyres are effected for the first time during the period commencing on the 1st day of April 1976, and ending with the 31st day of March 1984. Provided further that the exemption contained in the notification shall not apply to clearances of tyres effected after the expiry of a period of seven years from the date of the first clearance of tyres from any factory. Provided also that the exemption contained in the notification shall apply to first clearances of tyres for home consumption during any financial year only upto a total quantity not exceeding seventy fiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government of India F. No. 3313/3/84-ERU Explanatory Note : The aforesaid notification rescinds notification No. 88/84-C.E., dated 6-4-1984 as applicable to tyres falling under Tariff Item 16 of the C.E.T.". 5. The respondent aggrieved by the Notification No. 150/85 Central Excise, preferred writ petition No. 11078 of 1985 before this Court to quash the notification No. 159/86 [i] Central Excise, dated 15-7-1985 rescinding the notification No. 88/84 Central Excise dated 6-4-1984 to direct the respondents therein to permit the petitioner therein to clear the goods viz. Tyres and Tubes at the concessional rate of duty in terms of the Notification No. 88/84 Central Excise dated 6-4-1984 for the balance period covered by the said Notification. 6. Shanmukham, J. granted the relief as prayed for. The learned Judge accepted the respondents' contention that the concession given originally by Notification No. 268/82 Central Excises, dated 13-11-1982 is for a certain period of seven years since the date of the first clearance of tyres from any factory and other conditions envisaged under the said notification are satisfied by the respondent herein i.e. the respondent's conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, the learned counsel for appellants contends that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be pleaded against the legislature and that the delegated legislation is not some form of inferior legislation and is equivalent to an Act of Parliament and as such the respondent cannot plead doctrine of Promissory estoppel on the facts of this case. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Seshadri, the learned counsel for respondent contends that the principle of promissory estoppel applies to the facts of the case and that the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion by granting relief to the respondents. 9. Before discussing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellants on the principle of promissory estoppel, it is worthwhile to refer a passage in Principles of Administrative Law by M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain which reads as follows :- ".... The enforcement of the law is made dependent upon the fulfilment of a condition, and what is delegated to the outside agency is the authority to determine, by exercising its own judgment, whether or not the condition has been fulfilled. Thus in conditional legislation, the law is there but its taking effect is made to depend upon determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her of the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be. We are, therefore, of opinion that the correct view is that notwithstanding the subordinate legislation being laid on the table of the House of Parliament or the State Legislature and being subject to such modification, annulment or amendment as they may make, the subordinate legislation cannot be said to be valid unless it is within the scope of the rule making power provided in the statute." Virtually, the Supreme Court followed the principles, what it called conditional legislation and held on the facts that there was no excessive delegation or any application of power on the part of legislature. In the decision Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1031) considering the case Coble and Co. Ltd. v. Kropp [1967 (1) A.C. 14)] observed as follows :- (at p. 1049). "After referring to the various provisions of the Acts as well as the powers of the Queensland Legislature the Privy Council rejected the argument that the effect of the Acts was to create a new legislative authority. The Privy Council pointed out that it cannot rationally be said that there was any abandonment or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here one is concerned with a situation where Government exercises powers conferred upon it by statute or the powers of Subordinate legislation in acting contrary to the terms of a representation it had earlier made." 12. The Supreme Court explaining the doctrine in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Limited [1985 (22) E.L.T. 306 (S.C.) = (A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 806] at page 313 referred to the judgment of Denning, J. as he then was in his celebrated judgment in Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Limited [1956 I All. E.R. 256]. It referred to the decision in Mothilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621). The Supreme Court in this case at page 815 referred to the judgment in G.V. Seetharam v. Haryana (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1205) and held that what was stated in Mothilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621) represents the correct law in regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and they expressed their disagreement with the observations in Jit Ram v. Haryana (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1285) to the extent that they conflict with the statement of the law in Mothilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621). 13. The Supreme Court in a recent d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
